Unit 7 Lesson 9- Analyzing Informational Text Portfolio- Salmon
Key Terms
Interpret- to understand and explain information or an idea.
Author’s purpose- the reason an author writes a text. Must have a verb. “To explain, to inform, to persuade, to educate, to entertain”
Point of view- opinion
Conflicting point of view- an opposing opinion about a topic
Argument- a claim, position, or idea supported by reasons and backed up with evidence.
Claim- statement of opinion
Reasons- statements in support of a claim
Evidence- something that provides proof for a claim
Refute- assert that an idea is weak or incorrect
Conclusion- judgments based on reasoning76
Directions: Within Unit 7, lessons 1-8 have prepared you to complete a piece of analytical writing. Recall what you have learned in this portfolio to write an analysis of the texts,
“Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World” by Yonathan Zohar
Read aloud....Feed the World Y. Zohar
and “Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon” by Rick Moonen.
Read aloud: Say No....R. Moonen
Use the prompts to guide your response.
Your portfolio must include the following:
-A minimum one paragraph response to each of the questions listed. No introduction or conclusion are needed. You will turn in at least three paragraphs.
-In-text citations when referencing the two articles. Ex. (Zohar) or (Moonen)
Textbook Directions:Write a paragraph in which you describe the steps that experienced readers can use to analyze conflicting information in texts about the same topic. Explain why it is important for readers to recognize and evaluate conflicting information. Provide specific examples from the two texts.
Reworded Directions: As to not be fooled into believing everything you read, what should you look for in the article before you view it as reliable/credible/believable? Look at the text features, such as titles and subtitles. Look at the publication itself. Who published it? Is there an organization or group behind the publication? Who is the author? Are they reliable? What does that group represent? Is the author getting paid to write this? Are their multiple viewpoints published? Ask questions as you read. Is this a logical argument? Is there anything the author is leaving out?
Your paragraph should outline the steps you would take to decide if the author’s words are believable. You can number the steps within your paragraph. Explain why it is important to recognize and evaluate both sides to an argument. Provide at least two examples from both texts.
Outline for Question 1:
Outline of steps: (1,2,3…) Look for conflicting facts, and both sides for the argument and look for opinions and for omitted facts.
REaders should look for….
Explain why it is important to recognize and evaluate both sides of an argument: ( 1-2 sentences) be aware that opinions affect writings and bias is present
Evidence #1 from Moonen: “insert quote” (Moonen).
Elaborate on #1 Moonen quote:
Evidence #1 from Zohar: “insert quote” (Zohar).
“The AquAdvantage salmon is no different from conventional farmed salmon in its composition and health benefits, and the Food and Drug Administration has concluded that it is safe for people to eat.” (Zohar)
Elaborate on #1 Zohar quote:
Aquadvantage said that modified salmon is pretty much the same salmon as farmed salmon and the FDA has said the salmon is “safe to eat.”
Evidence #2 from Moonen: “insert quote” (Moonen).
Elaborate on #2 Moonen quote:
Evidence #2 from Zohar: “insert quote” (Zohar).
Elaborate on #2 Zohar quote:
Textbook Directions:Write a paragraph in which you explain why it matters when the two authors interpret the same facts differently. Using specific examples from the two texts, describe the impact of the authors’ differing interpretations of the facts on you as a reader.
Reworded Directions: Is the information really conflicting, or have the authors focused on different facts? Authors look at the same fact or statistic and present it in a different way in order to help their argument. Has this happened in either of the passages? Is the information misleading or incomplete? Why should you as an educated reader educate yourself about conflicting points of view? What should the reader look for in order to understand both points of view? Find examples from the two passages where the authors use the same information but in different ways to enhance their own argument.
Outline for Question 2:
Why does it matter to the reader when two authors interpret information differently? ( 1-2 sentences)
Evidence #1 from Moonen: “insert quote” (Moonen).
Elaborate on #1 Moonen quote:
Evidence #1 from Zohar: “insert quote” (Zohar).
Elaborate on #1 Zohar quote:
Evidence #2 from Moonen: “insert quote” (Moonen).
Elaborate on #2 Moonen quote:
Evidence #2 from Zohar: “insert quote” (Zohar).
Elaborate on #2 Zohar quote:
Textbook Directions:Write a paragraph in which you explain how including a conflicting point of view and evidence in an argument can make it more persuasive. Describe the effect that including a conflicting point of view and evidence can have on readers. Give specific examples.
Reworded Directions: Why is it beneficial to address the conflicting point of view? Author “A” believes Cake is best. Author “B” believes Pie is best. Why would it be beneficial for Author A to discuss Pie in their argument? What could Author A say about Pie that would help the Cake argument. Find examples from the Salmon articles where both author’s include each other’s arguments. IE. When Moonen brings up Zohar’s perspectives and when Zohar brings up Moonen’s perspective. Provide examples from the text.
Outline for Question 3:
Why is it beneficial to address the conflicting point of view? (1-2 sentences)
How does including a conflicting point of view and evidence make for a more persuasive argument? (1-2 sentences)
Describe the effect including a conflicting point of view can have on us as the readers. ( 1-2 sentences)
Evidence #1 from Moonen: “insert quote” (Moonen).
Elaborate on #1 Moonen quote:
Evidence #1 from Zohar: “insert quote” (Zohar).
Elaborate on #1 Zohar quote:
Evidence #2 from Moonen: “insert quote” (Moonen).
Elaborate on #2 Moonen quote:
Evidence #2 from Zohar: “insert quote” (Zohar).
Elaborate on #2 Zohar quote:
Question 1:
When analyzing conflicting information in texts about the same topic, experienced readers should look for conflicting facts, opinions, and omitted information. They should examine both sides of the argument and consider the reliability and credibility of the source and the author. This includes looking at the publication, the publisher, and the author's background. Readers should also ask questions to determine if the argument is logical and if there are any gaps in the information presented. It is important to recognize and evaluate conflicting information because opinions can influence the content and bias may be present. By considering both sides, readers can make informed judgments and form their own opinions.
In the texts provided, Rick Moonen argues against genetically engineered salmon while Yonathan Zohar supports the idea. Moonen highlights the potential environmental and health risks of genetically engineered salmon. He raises questions about the long-term effects on ecosystems and the unknown consequences of consuming these modified fish. On the other hand, Zohar emphasizes that genetically modified salmon is safe to eat and can help address the world's food shortage. He cites the conclusion of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that the modified salmon is safe for consumption. These conflicting facts and opinions demonstrate the need for readers to carefully analyze the information and consider both perspectives.
Evidence from Moonen's text includes the following quote: "The FDA declared it food-safe with no impact on health.” This demonstrates Moonen's concern about the potential health risks associated with genetically engineered salmon and his skepticism of the FDA's conclusion.
On the other hand, Zohar states, "The AquAdvantage salmon is no different from conventional farmed salmon in its composition and health benefits, and the FDA has concluded that it is safe for people to eat." This quote supports Zohar's argument that genetically modified salmon is safe for consumption and aligns with the FDA's assessment.
Question 2:
When authors interpret the same facts differently, it matters to the reader because it can impact their understanding and perception of the topic. Authors may focus on different facts or present the same information in a way that supports their argument. In the case of genetically engineered salmon, Moonen and Zohar interpret the facts differently, which can influence readers' opinions on the topic.
Moonen emphasizes the potential risks and negative consequences of genetically engineered salmon. He brings attention to the unknown long-term effects on ecosystems and raises health concerns about consuming these modified fish. His interpretation of the facts may lead readers to be more skeptical or critical of genetically modified salmon.
On the other hand, Zohar focuses on the safety and potential benefits of genetically modified salmon. He highlights the FDA's conclusion that the modified salmon is safe for consumption and argues that it can help address food shortages. Zohar's interpretation may lead readers to consider the potential positive impacts of this technology.
By recognizing and evaluating different interpretations of the same facts, readers can develop a more comprehensive and well-rounded understanding of the topic. It allows readers to consider multiple perspectives and make more informed judgments.
An example from Moonen's text is the following quote: "Consumers have a right to know what they’re eating,” Moonen says. This quote highlights Moonen's interpretation that transparency and consumer awareness are important when it comes to genetically modified salmon.
On the other hand, Zohar states, "Christopher Murray, director of the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation, reported that if aquaculture production cannot keep up with growing demand, the world could see a protein shortage." This quote demonstrates Zohar's interpretation that genetically modified salmon can help address the global food shortage and provide a solution to the increasing protein demand.
Question 3:
Including a conflicting point of view and evidence in an argument can make it more persuasive because it demonstrates a balanced and well-informed perspective. When an author acknowledges and addresses opposing views and provides evidence to counter them, it shows that they have considered different perspectives and have critically analyzed the topic. This can enhance the author's credibility and strengthen their overall argument.
By including a conflicting point of view, authors can anticipate and address potential counterarguments, making their own arguments more robust. This approach shows readers that the author is knowledgeable about different perspectives and has taken them into account. It also helps to establish a sense of fairness and objectivity in the argument.
In the texts provided, Moonen and Zohar both include each other's arguments in their respective articles. Moonen acknowledges Zohar's perspective by stating, "Some argue that genetically engineered salmon can help solve the world food crisis." By acknowledging this opposing argument, Moonen demonstrates that he has considered the counterpoint and is prepared to refute it.
On the other hand, Zohar also brings up Moonen's perspective by stating, "Critics worry about the potential environmental impact of genetically engineered salmon, including the potential for escape." This shows that Zohar has taken into account the concerns raised by Moonen and is addressing them in his argument.
By incorporating conflicting viewpoints and evidence, authors can engage readers in a more comprehensive and thoughtful discussion of the topic. It allows readers to evaluate different perspectives and form their own opinions based on a well-rounded understanding of the issue.